Turning Around the Pentagon's Innovation Battle By Tim Greef, Defense One: “The United States military is losing the innovation battle. This is not hyperbole. Ellen Lord, defense undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment, made this point last December.”

F-22 Production Was Killed so That a New Bomber Could Live By Tyler Rogoway, The WarZone: “Retired Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz has stated in his new memoir that F-22 production was idiotically axed after building less than half the required number so that the flying force could get then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to approve building a new stealth bomber.”

U.S. & Japan Can Counter Chinese A2/AD By Takuya Shimodaira, Proceedings Magazine: “Chinese anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities in the Indo-Pacific region are alarming. China seeks to wield its growing might to challenge the stable international order in the region with weapons that range from anti-ship cruise missiles to advanced submarines and even a rapidly growing and assertive coast guard.”

Missile Gap Is Looming in Hypersonic WeaponsBy Dan Goure, The National Interest: “A new “missile gap” is emerging, one that is based in fact. This is the disparity between the United States and its main competitors, Russia and China, in the field of hypersonic weapons systems.”

Presence Is Not Deterrence By Joseph Hanacek, Proceedings Magazine: “In pursuit of its sailing direction to “operate forward,” the U.S. Navy seems to have confused presence with deterrence and, in so doing, hampered its ability to maintain, train, and equip its forces effectively and sustainably.”

Private Enterprise Thriving in Central Europe By Lanny J. Davis, RealClearDefense: “Recently, Raytheon chose CSG to assist the training of Afghan officers as part of the U.S. Army’s Warfighter Field Operations Customer Support (FOCUS) program.”

Leap-Ahead Technologies: Could They Be the Army's Undoing? By Matthew Cox, Military.com: “The U.S. Army is locked on a path to replace its tanks, helicopters and other major combat systems -- a daunting venture in itself. But the true challenge for the service may be avoiding the minefield of mistakes that led to the multibillion-dollar demise of another leap-ahead plan, Future Combat Systems, less than a decade ago.”

Building the Hierarchy of Innovation in DoD: A Plan for Action​By Peter Newell, War on the Rocks: “In the process of defining these innovation pipelines we observed that there are distinct types of people who actually drive innovation in the military’s ecosystem: makers and innovators, entrepreneurs, and innovation gurus.”

Robert H. Scales writes: The Army’s decision to create a “Futures Command” is long overdue, well-intended, [...] But accelerating the pace of modernization without a rigorous understanding of how militaries anticipate the future of war might run the risk of creating an accelerating engine with greater thrust, but no vectors. - War on the Rocks

Forecasting the Future of Warfare By Robert H. Scales, War on the Rocks: “The Army’s decision to create a “Futures Command” is long overdue, well-intended, and absolutely necessary if the Army is to emerge from the malaise that has held modernization in its vice for all of this new century. But accelerating the pace of modernization without a rigorous understanding of how militaries anticipate the future of war might run the risk of creating an accelerating engine with greater thrust, but no vectors.”

What is U.S. Army Futures Command?From the AUSA Global Force Symposium, here's what we've learned about the Army's command devoted to modernizing the service. (Jeff Martin/Staff)

What’s next for Futures Command?In an interview before the Global Forces Symposium, Under Secretary of the Army Ryan McCarthy laid out what’s ahead in the process to stand up the service's newest command. (Jeff Martin & Daniel Woolfolk/Staff)

Is Russia on the Doorstep of the Seventh Military Revolution? By Sergey Sukhankin, Eurasia Daily Monitor: “Army General Valery Gerasimov, the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, presented his reflections on future conflicts, on March 24. Notably, he argued that “the enemy’s economy and command-and-control system (C2) will be priority targets [for potential Russian attacks].” And aside from traditional warfighting domains, Russian forces will increasingly operate in the information sphere and outer space.”

Joshua Rovner writes: Competitive strategies are deliberately risky because by definition, they work by inspiring fear in adversaries. [...] Russia seems vulnerable to competitive strategies because of its oversensitivity and proclivity for overreaction. - War on the Rocks

How to Respond to Russia’s INF Treaty ViolationBy Gary Schmitt & James Cunningham, RealClearDefense: “When The New York Times reported that Russia had likely deployed a nuclear-armed cruise missile in violation of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, declared the treaty “in tatters” and the deployment a lesson “about the price of not confronting aggression.”” ​

Russia’s Shipbuilding Program: Postponed Blue-Water Ambitions By Ihor Kabanenko, Eurasia Daily Monitor: “Russia’s shipbuilding program for 2011–2020, under which the country plans to build over 100 new warships, is reportedly causing “a very bad feeling” among some Russian naval experts. They describe the current status of the Russian Navy as a “ceremonial fleet” and have suggested that one third of the shipbuilding program has resulted in little more than a “donut hole.””